Sympatric walleye <i>Sander vitreus</i> and sauger <i>Sander canadensis</i> in large reservoirs: Variable isotopic niche size and overlap across multiple time scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Walleye Sander vitreus (Mitchill) and sauger Sander canadensis (Griffith & Smith) may occupy similar niches in sympatric populations, but their long‐term resource use is poorly studied. Multi‐tissue (liver, muscle and bone) isotopic niche analyses were used to compare resource use by these species in two large reservoirs in Saskatchewan, Canada. Population isotopic niches were larger for sauger (1.73‰ 2 –3.60‰ 2 ) than walleye (0.51‰ 2 –2.61‰ 2 ) in Lake Diefenbaker, but opposite in Tobin Lake (sauger = 0.54‰ 2 –2.57‰ 2 ; walleye = 1.30‰ 2 –2.94‰ 2 ). Analyses of population overlap suggest that these species co‐exist via niche partitioning, but partitioning was more pronounced in Lake Diefenbaker (overlap = 6%–38%; Tobin Lake overlap = 18%–62%). The size of individual niches and levels of intra‐ and interspecific overlap among individual fish also varied with reservoir. This study shows that walleye and sauger use different resources across different time scales, but the degree of partitioning can vary markedly with environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".